Horner v Hunt

Case [2013] WASC 241

HORNER -v- HUNT [2013] WASC 241



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2013] WASC 241
21/06/2013
Case No:SJA:1065/201311 JUNE 2013
Coram:HALL J11/06/13
15Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced
B
PDF Version
Parties:PETA CHANTEL HORNER
TIMOTHY WILLIAM HUNT

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Appeal against sentence
Whether a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment for trespass was manifestly excessive
Whether the sentence should have been suspended

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233
Ness v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 56
Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291
Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CRIMINAL
CITATION : HORNER -v- HUNT [2013] WASC 241 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 11 JUNE 2013 DELIVERED : 11 JUNE 2013 PUBLISHED : 21 JUNE 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1065 of 2013 BETWEEN : PETA CHANTEL HORNER
    Appellant

    AND

    TIMOTHY WILLIAM HUNT
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE K T FISHER

File No : BU 5529 of 2012


Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Whether a sentence of 8 months' imprisonment for trespass was manifestly excessive - Whether the sentence should have been suspended


(Page 2)



Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time to appeal granted


Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr D D Brunello
    Respondent : Mr D E Leigh

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Aboriginal Legal Service (WA)
    Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
McLeod v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 233
Ness v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 56
Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291
Powell v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASC 54
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
Wright v McMurchy [2012] WASCA 257


(Page 3)
    HALL J:




Introduction

1 This appeal against sentence was heard by me on 11 June 2013. Following the hearing I granted the extension of time sought, granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. These are my reasons for making those orders.

2 Between March and December 2012 the appellant committed a series of offences of petty theft. That is to say, she stole small amounts of property from shops or open cars. Her motivation was to obtain money to fund her drug habit.

3 On 25 January 2013 the appellant appeared in the Bunbury Magistrates Court to be…

Continue reading Horner v Hunt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
HORNER -v- HUNT [2013] WASC 241
Case
[2013] WASC 241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Horner v Hunt, the appellant, Horner, appealed against a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for trespass. Horner had entered a property owned by Hunt without permission, leading to his conviction and subsequent sentence. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the eight-month sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence should have been suspended instead of being imposed directly. The court was tasked with assessing the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence and considering the principles that guide sentencing decisions, particularly concerning the appropriateness of custodial sentences for minor offences such as trespass.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the factors relevant to the imposition of a custodial sentence. It examined the nature of the offence, Horner's criminal history, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also took into account the mitigating factors presented, including Horner's otherwise unblemished record and the absence of any aggravating circumstances. The court determined that the sentence of eight months' imprisonment was disproportionate to the offence of trespass, especially considering that such offences are typically dealt with by fines or lesser penalties. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence should have been suspended, given Horner's lack of a criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation through non-custodial means.

Consequently, the court granted Horner's appeal on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should not have been imposed as a custodial sentence. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence. The case was remitted for resentencing, with the direction that the court should consider a suspended sentence or an alternative penalty more commensurate with the nature of the offence. The court also extended the time for Horner to appeal the new sentence, ensuring that he had the opportunity to challenge any new sentence imposed. The court's decision underscores the importance of proportionality and the need to tailor sentences to the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time to appeal granted

Leave to appeal granted on ground 1

Appeal allowed

Sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.